Friday, October 22, 2010

TSA’s job is to help keep the skies safe. Members of flight crews in or out of uniform whether dead-heading, commuting, or working are not exempt from security. It has always been this way. If procedures call for them to go through TSA checkpoint screening and there's an AIT machine present, they can opt out of AIT screening just like any other passenger, but they’ll also receive a thorough pat-down, just like any other passenger who opts out. Opting out of a pat-down and AIT screening would be the same as opting out of screening altogether, and that just can’t be done. The same even goes for TSA employees who are traveling. I go through screening every time I fly, as well as everybody from Officers all the way up to the Administrator.

Advanced imaging technology safely screens passengers for metallic and nonmetallic threats including weapons, explosives and other objects concealed under layers of clothing without physical contact to help TSA keep the traveling public safe. Feel free to check out our AIT page at TSA.gov or read some of the blog posts we’ve written on the subject.

A pilot can destroy a plane BY DEFINITION, because a pilot can STEER. We want pilots to have the power to crash planes, because that necessarily means that they also have the ability to avoid bridges, flocks of birds, other planes, weather balloons, &c. Making pilots go through security designed to detect bombs and weapons MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. Obviously what's not optional is disobedience, not security.

So if "Security is Not Optional" I'm sure that means everyone including TSA employees are being scanned (using the same procedures as passengers) before passing from one side of the check point to the other.

I feel SO much better knowing that the crew (who, if they actually had any malicious intent, could do all sorts of nasty things with/to the aircraft they're totally entrusted with) has been intrusively inspected to ensure that they're not carrying oversized pocketknives or too much toothpaste.

Aargh. It's amazing that they put up with being treated like criminals every day that they go to work instead of just intermittently like the rest of us. I'd lose patience with that, too.

Please explain why you get a groping if you opt out of being irradiated, but not if you are lucky enough to go through the metal detector? That this is retaliatory behavior on your part is without question. I am just wondering how you justify it in your evil little anti-American minds.

Security apparently is optional when it's done by TSA. With as abysmal as the GAO's red team results are, it's apparent that TSA's only implementing security part time. Perhaps it's a case of "some screeners implement security. Some don't. Each screener is different."

If it's not optional, then it's just incompetence, and neither speaks well of TSA.

Al

PS - interesting that my word verification is sphyped. Had to chuckle that about how much of TSA is hype and no substance.

However, much of what TSA does is purely the result of its own foolish, hysterical, and dishonest choices. TSA chose to declare war on an entire state of matter. TSA chose to create an absurd and pointless shoe carnival which no other nation in the world has replicated, without any ill effect in the rest of the world. TSA chose to buy expensive, untested, dangerous, and invasive strip-search machines and install them without concern for privacy, efficiency of security, passengers' belongings, or the infinitesimal likelihood that they would ever be used to detect anything dangerous (and, to date, they have yet to do so). TSA chose to hire felons, people without high school diplomas, and perverts to conduct screening. TSA has chosen to be a disgrace to this nation and its enemies' greatest victory. TSA and everyone who works for it should be ashamed of themselves, for the choices they have made and the options they have chosen.

TSA purports to be an organization which crafts THREAT-BASED security procedures. And yet pilots and flight attendants are treated as the exact same threat as any passenger in the world with internet access to Travelocity or any travel agency in any country on the planet. How is that threat-based? From my perspective, the potential threat from a pilot or flight attendant is an unintentionally introduced item, i.e., placing a personal protection firearm in the wrong bag, or grabbing the wrong bag, OR a possibly suicidal pilot or flight attendant who wants to play shoot 'em up bang-bang at 35,000 feet. Pilots and flight attendants should be subjected to no more than x-ray of their carry-on items, and metal detector inspection of their persons. And PLEASE don't trot out that tired and burned-out excuse "insider threat". TSA's own screeners waltz right through the area setting off every single alarm and nobody bats an eye. What makes TSA's employees so much more "trustworthy"? How about all of the TSA employees who have been popped for stealing from passengers? Or passing bags around the machines for bribes? Yes - "Security is not Optional" (unless you're a TSA employee.) It makes absolutely no sense to take a Cub Scout knife away from a pilot while he's on his way to lawfully take command of a potential weapon of mass destruction. And as for the Express Jet pilot boarding as a commuting passenger rather than piloting an aircraft, why would TSA trot THAT silly argument out? How much different would the scenario have played out IF the pilot had been actively flying an aircraft out of Memphis that morning? Not one darned bit.

If a passenger who submits to the whole body imager only has to be "patted down" to solve any unusual items detected, how is it that I was stripped down to my shirt, pants, socks, and (thankfully) underwear, and yet still had a TSA employee take full and indecent liberty with his palms and front of his hand and fingers FIRMLY pressed into both of my butt cheeks? Anyplace other than the airport, he'd have been arrested for sexual assault, and I'd probably have been arrested for aggravated assault. I had to clasp the sides of my trousers I was so infuriated at how I was treated. And at NO time did the TSA employee EVER tell me in advance what he was about to do - to include placing the four fingers of both hands about two inches BELOW my waist and INSIDE my trousers as he ran his hands all the way around my waist. I used to enjoy a signficant amount of discetionary flying - to the point that I am a top-tier 1K frequent flyer on United Airlines. No more. I'll burn my miles in the coming year to take advantage of my status, and after that, I'm *DONE* with all but essential flying. I just wonder how many other people, like me, will be avoiding flying. Good luck to the US airline industry, now that we've ruined it.

"I go through screening every time I fly, as well as everybody from Officers all the way up to the Administrator." PLLLLLEASE!!! That's OUTRAGEOUS! Maybe you mean that your screeners go through screening when they fly (as they should), but they carry their lunch boxes, back packs, and all sorts of other crap right through - it does NOT get put through the x-ray machines, and they set off EVERY buzzer, beeper, horn, siren, alarm - and nobody bats an eye.

What's the matter Bob? Has the entire Propaganda Department come down with the swine flu or something? What else, then, would explain such a tepid, tardy reaction to that unspeakably naughty little pilot boy who refused to be strip searched or groped? And who, apparently, your bosses ordered you not to specifically mention lest you grant him unwarranted legitimacy.

But at least you have enough of your wits to included the requisite plug for the Nude-O-Scope, which has been cunningly renamed "Advanced Imaging Technology" to avoid upsetting those people who might not be aware that it's a strip search. And you've included a most excellent whopper in the title of the post.

If you ever wanted to be accurate and truthful, the headline should have been "TSA Screening is Not Optional." That's because there's no reason to believe that the Nude-O-Scope, the genital grope, the Freedom Baggies, the shoe removal, or any of the other hassles you inflict provides any security. And no, Bob, "Trust Us" is not a reason to believe that it does.

And since you proudly proclaim that you "go through screening every time I fly, as well as everybody from Officers all the way up to the Administrator," have you or any other members of the Propaganda Department ever felt the tender caresses of a TSO's hand on your intimate areas? I can't believe for a millisecond that Generalissimo Pistole would allow himself to waste any of his precious time with screening when he goes on his junkets to dictate airport security policy to lesser nations.

Have you ever considered the possibility that truth, honesty, and transparency might be a better solution to the TSA's credibility problem than spin and condescension? (Don't bother avoiding that question, since we already know the answer.)

So just to make sure I understand it correctly. Mr. Roberts has to be subjected to the nude-o-scope and groped on his way to his workplace in the cockpit of the airplane. And in the meantime, TSA clerks can come and go into and out of the sterile area all day long with no pat down, or inspections while at work despite the fact that hardly a week goes by without having them steal from innocent passengers (ref. Michael Arato at Newark for the latest example).

If a pilot wanted to fly his plane into something he wouldn't need a weapon to get into the cockpit, he's already there. What's the point of scanning him? If he wants to do damage nothing he could sneak into the plane on his person could do more damage than the plane itself.

And this leads of to ask a very serious question that I hope Bob can answer: Is she and other DHS higher ups subjected by these security measures?

Does Napolitano have to go through this scanner before she flies? If she declines to be scanned, will she get the enhanced pat down?*****************************

Anon, perhaps you've forgotten the TSA's motto of 'Do as we say, not as we do'? But then again, Sec'y Napolitano has already stated publicly that these machines wouldn't have caught the Panty Bomber &, unlike her predecessor, she has nothing to gain from a financial standpoint each time one of these machines is installed somewhere.

W/re: to those who have pointed out that screeners are exempt from the screening process, as a reminder, TSA claims that is ok because screeners 'are not getting on planes' when they come to work. Well, except of course, for Wanda Weems who did exactly that & was only caught because an alert pax notified law enforcement. If there is one Wanda Weems, it stands to reason there are others just like her who weren't caught.

I'm guessing that Bob's post is a response to a certain pilot who committed an act of defiance against the TSA. Some people might consider him a hero, as he was willing to sacrifice his livelihood on principle. In a country where the majority of citizens have been reduced to terrified little sheep willing to be strip searched and/or sexually assaulted by government "officers" in the name of illusory "security," the pilot's defiance is indeed refreshingly heroic.

On first reading, I had the impression that Bob was caught napping, or perhaps was flummoxed about how to respond. His post seemed an inexplicably bland regurgitation of platitudes, along with an absolutely unbelievable claim that Mr. Pistole endures the pointless hassles he inflicts on lesser mortals. (It's a good thing Bob isn't Pinocchio, since his nose would have become a deadly weapon after he posted that whopper.)

But on further reading, I'm in awe of Bob's mastery of the art of propaganda. Explicitly mentioning the defiant pilot would grant him legitimacy by admitting that it raised the TSA's institutional ire. It might have even inspired those people who consider the pilot a hero.

But a response that avoids even mentioning the offending act, and offers up platitudes, lies, and yet another opportunity to praise the safety and friendliness of the Nude-O-Scope scanner is a consummate propaganda coup. It's telling us that the TSA is responding to the pilot's misbehavior with a yawn. It's telling us that the TSA considers itself infallible, and doesn't care what we think of them. It's telling us that their juggernaut will simply roll over anyone who defies them without even noticing the bump. We're completely powerless against the TSA, so we might as well give up and be good little sheep.

Bob further demonstrates the mastery of his craft by reversing the normal TSA response to threats. Usually, the TSA make sure we're all aware of every threat when they institute new hassles or intrusions that punish everyone but the perpetrator. But this time, Bob craftily responded to this threat by completely ignoring it.

I'm sure Joseph Goebbels is looking up at you and giving you thumbs-up for this exquisitely-crafted work.

This means more business for Amtrak and Greyhound. They still travel coast to coast, just a lot slower.No checkpoints or security issues to worry about.You can always rent a car and drive to where you want to go. Avis, or many of the other rental car companies out there.The choice is all yours.

Please, just give it up. The TSA is ineffective and useless. Forcing pilots to undergo secondary screening is ridiculous. Your job is to secure transportation. If you cannot trust the pilots, then it is game over. Once physical access is lost, you cannot secure the plane any more. How much longer until there us a mandatory TSA monitor that sits with the pilots and makes sure they fly "properly"?

Bob, your happy talk about the enhanced scanners ignores the repeated instances where images are improperly retained, shared, and salaciously reviewed by security personnel. Your happy talk about enhanced pat downs ignores the repeated instances where what really happens is a retaliatory strip search by TSA personnel who want to make the traveler pay for exercising what you falsely advertise as his or her right.

Why isn't the traveling public being advised ahead of time about the procedures they'll be undergoing during the screening process? This would give them the ability to make informed decisions regarding whether to fly or not, based on whether they want to experience the enhanced patdown when they rightfully refuse AIT screening? This would allow freedom of choice regarding method of travel. We are constitutionally guaranteed the right to move freely about our country - no guarantees about "how" we do this, but if we choose to not fly, we take other means of transportation. But if we've unknowingly already bought our non-refundable tickets, made up our travel itineraries and taken the appropriate amount of time from work, we're pretty much forced to endure the procedures or lose all the time and money. TSA should be very public about these new procedures BEFORE we get to the airport so there are no surprises.

I'd like to know why you can't opt out and use the regular line without someone giving you a prison-style patdown. TSA says that the "classic" WTMD style checkpoints are just as safe as the AIT checkpoints. If that is so, then why are they spending millions of dollars on these invasive, potentially carcinogenic machines?

TSA should only use the Naked Imaging Device in cases where there is significant REASONABLE belief an individual is a threat. Forcing a law abiding citizen of this nation, or a guest of this nation, to choose between naked images or molestation is UNREASONABLE and therefore unconstitutional.

What kind of threat did you expect to uncover on a pilot using whole body imaging or a pat down? They are allowed to take liquids, aren't they? And I don't really think a plastic knife will make a PILOT more dangerous.

George sez - "along with an absolutely unbelievable claim that Mr. Pistole endures the pointless hassles he inflicts on lesser mortals"When Mr. Pistole flies on a commercial flight, he has to undergo the same screening at the checkpoint that you would. When I fly commercial, I have to undergo the same screening that you do. RB sez - "Poll ResultsDo you approve of the introduction of body scanners at the nation's airports?Yes! They will improve security.22% No! They're an invasion of privacy! 73% I'm not sure. 6%"You realize that the numbers you have listed = 101%?

KDT sez - "Bob, your happy talk about the enhanced scanners ignores the repeated instances where images are improperly retained, shared, and salaciously reviewed by security personnel."Not TSA, we do not retain, save or share images with anyone. The machines in airports have the ability to save/store/transmit images disabled. You may be referring to the US Marshals service, which retained some images on one of their machines, but we do not have that capability at the checkpoints.

"[W]e must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." --Dwight D. Eisenhower

You realize percentages are rounded? Therefore, totals can add to 99, 100 or 101 percent. Occasionally, respondents can provide more than one answer. The totals will add to more than 100 percent in those instances.

Anonymous writes: This means more business for Amtrak and Greyhound. They still travel coast to coast, just a lot slower. No checkpoints or security issues to worry about.You can always rent a car and drive to where you want to go. Avis, or many of the other rental car companies out there. The choice is all yours.

@RB: But, the fact remains that a very large majority of the responders are AGAINST WBI STRIP SEARCH CHILD PORN MACHINES.

This poll is just as meaningless as the one Bob proudly cites as claiming that respondents are happy with the Nude-O-Scope because it's safe, friendly, and a great security enhancement. Polls too often produce the results their sponsors paid the pollsters to produce.

I don't think we're actually going to know how people feel about the Nude-O-Scope. An unknown number are very concerned about the negative aspects that have been rehashed endlessly here. And an unknown, probably larger number have drunk the TSA's Kool-Aid and eagerly embrace it because they think it keeps them safe. The latter group may not be fully aware that the scanner is a strip search that exposes them to radiation, since the TSA's Propaganda Department is doing its best to obscure those troublesome details.

Unfortunately, it's really not possible to have a rational discussion of this issue. There's more heat than light on both sides, and the actual facts that might allow a rational evaluation of the costs and benefits are conveniently hidden from view behind the DHS curtain of pervasive secrecy. The only inescapable fact is that the TSA bosses have made the irrevocable decision that anyone guilty of wanting to fly shall be subjected either to a radiation strip search or a humiliating "pat down." And there's nothing we can do about that other than choosing not to fly.

Somehow I think this situation is exactly what the TSA bosses want. Some of us may not like it. Some of us may consider it an unconstitutional abuse of authority. But that's of no concern to the TSA. They know what's best, and they have no need to be at all concerned what we think.

They would, of course, prefer that we unquestioningly accept everything they do as "necessary for Security," and accordingly refrain from what would otherwise be healthy skepticism. But that's mainly because it's so much easier and more efficient to screen docile little sheep who unhesitatingly obey whatever TSOs bellow at them. But otherwise they can just ignore (or dismiss if necessary) our complaints and criticism. The Infallible TSA is always right.

This has already been said numerous times, but let me add my voice to the chorus - it doesn't make a lot of sense to require pilots to go through thorough screening for weapons and bombs. The pilot can destroy the plane at practically anytime he or she is in control of it. Just saying "rules are rules" isn't sufficient justification.

"Poll ResultsDo you approve of the introduction of body scanners at the nation's airports?Yes! They will improve security.22% No! They're an invasion of privacy! 73% I'm not sure. 6%"You realize that the numbers you have listed = 101%?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

AIT is an unreasonable search and seizure and it does not name the place to be searched.

@Anonymous, October 24, 2010 11:22 PM: it doesn't make a lot of sense to require pilots to go through thorough screening for weapons and bombs. The pilot can destroy the plane at practically anytime he or she is in control of it. Just saying "rules are rules" isn't sufficient justification.

Actually, this may just be one of those cases where "rules are rules" is sufficient justification. If pilots didn't have to go through the same pretense of "security" as the rest of us, critics of the TSA would have valid grounds to complain about a very visible hole in their supposedly air-tight layered fortress. For the reasons that have been mentioned here, subjecting pilots to the standard security theatre does little for actual security. But it is necessary for political reasons, to make the security theatre more convincing and to neutralize criticism.

Not that the TSA and DHS really cares about the credibility of their security theatre, at least to those of us whose eyes and brains are functioning. Janet Napolitino's well-publicized refusal to be scanned by the AIT machines that her Department's propagandists insist are safe and protect privacy was inexcusably stupid, and further damaged the TSA's deplorable credibility. I don't think even Bob can find enough spin to defend or justify that. The only thing he can do is to ignore it and hope we'll forget about it. That doesn't seem to be happening.

Similarly, the cavalier way TSOs throw contraband liquid containers into trash barrels severely undermines the propagandists' continued claims that liquids are a serious threat to aviation. The continuing accounts of ignorant arrogant bullies in the ranks of TSOs undermines the propagandists' soothing reassurances that such things shouldn't happen because the TSA does not tolerate such behavior. And the continuing accounts of TSOs prohibiting items that Bob's posts tell us are permitted casts serious doubt on the training and competence of TSOs. But the propagandists still insist we should ignore what's plainly visible to passengers (and also what the GAO finds when they peek behind the curtain) and Believe that behind the deceptively comical facade we see at airports is a highly effective, well-managed organization that protects aviation.

As for the TSA employees who are upset because some of us refuse to Believe, they have only their bosses to blame. Bellowing "DYWTFT" may temporarily bully people into submission at checkpoints, but that "respect" will turn to disgust and hatred once screening is over. Respect and credibility must be earned. And it appears that the TSA management has no interest in earning it.

I have had a pacemaker since I was 15 years old. I'm 28 now. I fly frequently for both business and personal reasons. I am very used to being pat-down and the security procedures pertaining to my condition, and am always kind and patient with security in hopes of being treated the same.

Yesterday, upon opting to have a pat-down rather than go through the AIT machine due to the fact that I have a pacemaker, I was very rudely told by a TSA agent that I was lucky for now, but to JUST WAIT UNTIL NEXT YEAR WHEN I WON'T HAVE A CHOICE [to be pat-down was implied]. I told the man that it was ridiculous to expect that I should go through a large x-ray machine that emits energy waves that can see through people's clothes, and therefore be powerful enough to adversely affect my pacemaker when there is NO information out there on the possible effects or validating the safety of the machine. I told him if he had any information, I would gladly take it and read it and consider whether or not the machine might be a viable option for me or not. He looked at me as though I was the stupidest person in the world, and slammed the gate behind me as the female-assist took me back for a pat-down.

I have had personal experience with having a pacemaker malfunction and need emergency replacing (and feeling pretty close to death during the ordeal) due to unknown interference affecting it before. And I have a pretty modern pacemaker, encased in titanium. A lot of more elderly people with pacemakers do not have that luxury, and could also be seriously affected by EMI and radiation, and they may not have the mental state to tell the TSA agent NO at the AIT machine either, which is scary. I personally am extremely concerned about the idea of walking through an AIT machine due to my own personal experiences. TSA claims it emits less radiation than a cellphone, but cellphones are also terrible for pacemakers (I've always been warned to use them sparingly, and only on the ear on the opposite side of my body from my pacemaker). If a cellphone can be hazardous to my pacemaker if I use it too long on the opposite side of my body by my ear, why would I want to shower my whole body in similar radiation for 30 seconds every time I fly?

Is TSA really going to take away my ability to "opt out" of walking through this machine as of next year like your agent so rudely told me was going to happen? TSA guidelines claim you can always opt out, but I also don't want to have to deal with rude, threatening, and I'm sorry, but, STUPID ignorant employees when I do, and I've heard of situations from people I know personally where they were literally denied the ability to opt out completely. They were told they can walk through the machine or leave the airport and not fly at all. Will I have to face a situation where my only option is to NOT fly (including for my job, which could affect my employment), or walk through a machine that could potentially severely harm my pacemaker and my ability to live (and/or cause me to have to pay for a replacement pacemaker if it is damaged- is TSA going to foot that bill if that happens???)

GSOLTSO said...Not TSA, we do not retain, save or share images with anyone. The machines in airports have the ability to save/store/transmit images disabled.

It wasn't that long ago that the Official TSA Position was that the equipment "could not" store [etc] images. That was proven false- the equipment CAN store images. Now the Official TSA Position is that this feature is 'disabled'. Having been proven to lie about this topic before, why should we believe you now?

Yes, a suicidal pilot could attempt to crash the plane. Of course I have yet to fly on a plane where there weren't two guys in the cockpit. So unless your scenario is such that BOTH pilots decide today is the day to die we have some safeguards in place there. Fed Ex 705 comes to mind as a great example of that. Any of you think Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771would have turned out differently if Mr. Burke hadn't been able to bypass security using airline credentials and bring a .44 on board? How about all the pilots who have been caught smuggling other substances? Yes, I realize the TSA isn't supposed to look for drugs, but it isn't too hard to imagine a pilot thinking he is smuggling drugs for someone and they really give him a bomb. How hard is it to steal a pilot’s uniform and fake some credentials? Anyone want to get Frank Abagnale Jr's opinion on that?

Lastly to George, I am a frequent flier; I have none of the issues you seem to. I arrive a little early, I take my shoes off drop them on the belt, take my laptop out of the bag and I sail right through security. I can't remember the last time I had to exchange more than a few words with any of the TSOs working. It really isn't that difficult to navigate airport security, and I see none of the disrespect you claim. In fact, I can recall more cases where I observed passengers behaving disrespectfully to TSOs than the other way around.

I'd like to know if there are any statistics kept by TSA of just how many passengers must be "patted down" despite going through the body scanners? I've never made it through without having to be patted down. And I've stopped and looked back and watched almost EVERY passenger have to be patted down, despite having gone through this wondrous new technological marvel. Nobody in this country would put up with a formal declaration that ALL travelers must be physically patted down, but that's essentially what we've got. It's a very, very sad day for democracy, freedom, and the Republic of the United States when its citizens cannot board an airplane before first submitting to an invasive, humiliating, and UNCONSTITUTIONAL physical assault at the hands of a government employee. I cannot believe TSA or DHS leadership is fully aware of the numbers of passengers which are now being "patted down". I'd bet they're actually wondering what all the uproar is about.

I have to go through TSA every morning on my way to work. I have more access at my airport than they do. The other morning I went through the medal detector at 3am and they pulled me aside and frisked me. I was told that every employee has to go through this procedure starting the 29th. We are not travelling, we work at the airport. Now we get harrassed at our place of employment.

Anon, if there are 2,000,000 complaints, that indicates problems at TSA and that IS a big deal. Next ...

@TJ: "The place to be searched by AIT is ostensibly the crotch area.

Thank Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab for that."

And security experts only gave the Nude-O-Scope a 60% chance of detecting he was wearing something heavy down there. Sounds like a lot of money to waste on something that isn't even close to a sure thing given the privacy and health implications of these things.

Anonymous writes: I have to go through TSA every morning on my way to work. I have more access at my airport than they do. The other morning I went through the medal detector at 3am and they pulled me aside and frisked me. I was told that every employee has to go through this procedure starting the 29th. We are not travelling, we work at the airport. Now we get harrassed at our place of employment.

Welcome to our world. 90% of the time that I'm on an airplane, I'm traveling for business purposes. In a very real sense, the airport is my place of employment, too. I have have to be harassed every time I go to work, why shouldn't you?

"Yes, a suicidal pilot could attempt to crash the plane. Of course I have yet to fly on a plane where there weren't two guys in the cockpit. So unless your scenario is such that BOTH pilots decide today is the day to die we have some safeguards in place there."

So exactly where does the flight crew go when they have to pee? Is there a restroom in the cockpit?

No, there isn't. All our prospective suicidal pilot has to do is wait for the other pilot to go to the can . . .

Yes, a suicidal pilot could attempt to crash the plane. Of course I have yet to fly on a plane where there weren't two guys in the cockpit. So unless your scenario is such that BOTH pilots decide today is the day to die we have some safeguards in place there.

Oh, please. Suicidal pilot says to co-pilot, hey is that a UFO? While co-pilot is looking out window, pilot hits him upside the head with the fire axe conveniently located in the cockpit. Tah-Duh!

I was wondering how the use of AIT for primary screening came into existence. Were any regulations promulgated? Did this go through notice and comment rulemaking? Is this statutory? I would like to know where the authority to do this comes from. Thank you for your time.

There's no reason you need to see me naked before I fly. So I'm opting out of the scanner. You're more than welcome to pat me down, but understand this: if you touch my junk during that process, I will assume it's sexual assault. I will bring the pat down to an immediate conclusion using whatever means are necessary, and then place the person who groped me under citizen's arrest, and detain him until the police arrive.

The TSA has gone too far. We need a serious dose of civil disobedience. Everyone needs to opt out of the scanners, and then refuse any pat down that involves touching any area of the body that you've told your kid to scream their head off if an adult touches them there. Imagine if everyone did this. The TSA would HAVE to stop this invasive, unconstitutional policies.

It is ironic that the same people who call TSA "security theater" also complain when more effective security measures are implemented (AIT, pat downs). You can't have it both ways.

It is also ironic to read the complaints about lack of professionalism in TSA screeners. The base rate of pay for a screener is $11.64 and hour and they have to endure working split shifts, weekends, holidays, and graveyard shifts. And during those hours they have to deal with leaking adult diapers, a variety of bodily fluids, and constant complaining, ridicule, scorn, and berating by the traveling public they are trying to protect. What kind of professionalim do you think you are going to get for $11.64 an hour to work a terrible job like that? I'm glad I'm not a screener, I couldn't take it.

I arrived at the Los Angeles Airport more than an hour early. I had made good time on the highway. I wasn’t checking any bags, so with my boarding pass in hand I proceeded to the gate. I was greeted with a security line that was almost an hour long. The line snaked around the terminal, out the door, and stretched down the sidewalk. At the front of the line sat a lone Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officer studiously checking identification with a jeweler’s loupe, the small magnifying glass jewelers use to look for flaws in gemstones.

It is little wonder that polls consistently find that the TSA is the most hated U.S. government agency, even more despised than the Internal Revenue Service. Americans believe that the TSA is rude, invasive, obnoxious, and dull-witted. Sure, there are good, honest, hard-working folks employed by the TSA; I have met some of them. However, I tend to share the negative assessment that airport security is not firing on all cylinders.

When I finally reached the security station, I discovered the source of the delay. In addition to TSA incompetence, the lines were backed up going through a new security machine ironically called a “Rapid Scan.”

The “Rapid Scan” is one of the new x-ray machines recently employed by the TSA to perform full-body scans on airline passengers.

With all due respect - this is nothing more than propaganda for a bloated useless and inefective government handout program. A reasonable person would privitize the TSA as soon as possible. A reasonable person would not have security at the cost of dignity, liberty, or common sense.

You know, the TSA is the poster child for all thats wrong with government today. Lack of truth, dishonest representation of the facts, and the persistent use of fear and contempt for the American public. Shame the leadership of the TSA and DHS.

Just went through Boston Logan yesterday and "opted out" of the porno pic. Was punished by a series of offensive genital contacts. You guys are a joke and contemptable. You have some major group think problems going on in the HQ. 28 years in the military, two wars, only to be treated like a national threat....shame on you all.

Pilots go through screening because we don't really believe they are pilots. They could have fake ID's. So even though they look like pilots and get into the pilots seat we are only fooling ourselves. We all know they can fly the plane into anything they want but it's all for show

Earl Pitts said... Anon, if there are 2,000,000 complaints, that indicates problems at TSA and that IS a big deal. Next ...

i didnt say there were 2 million complaints. of the 2 million people the fly everyday, only 58 of you guys that dont fly complain about the new procedures. thats pretty good odds huh? try to spin better next time....

Rosemary Fitzpatrick, a CNN employee, said she was subjected to a pat-down at the Orlando, Florida, airport on Wednesday night after her underwire bra set off a magnetometer. She said she was taken to a private area and searched, with transportation screening officers telling her the pat-down was a new procedure.

According to Fitzpatrick, a female screener ran her hands around her breasts, over her stomach, buttocks and her inner thighs, and briefly touched her crotch.

"I felt helpless, I felt violated, and I felt humiliated," Fitzpatrick said, adding that she was reduced to tears at the checkpoint. She particularly objected to the fact that travelers were not warned about the new procedures.

8675309 said... It is ironic that the same people who call TSA "security theater" also complain when more effective security measures are implemented (AIT, pat downs). You can't have it both ways.

It is also ironic to read the complaints about lack of professionalism in TSA screeners. The base rate of pay for a screener is $11.64 and hour and they have to endure working split shifts, weekends, holidays, and graveyard shifts. And during those hours they have to deal with leaking adult diapers, a variety of bodily fluids, and constant complaining, ridicule, scorn, and berating by the traveling public they are trying to protect. What kind of professionalim do you think you are going to get for $11.64 an hour to work a terrible job like that? I'm glad I'm not a screener, I couldn't take it.

October 27, 2010 8:43 PM

................What makes you think that paying substandard employees more would result in better performance?

@8675309: "It is ironic that the same people who call TSA "security theater" also complain when more effective security measures are implemented (AIT, pat downs). You can't have it both ways."

We're not having it both ways. There is no evidence these are effective. The UN has called the Nude-o-Scopes a political solution, British experts have questioned whether these even would have found the underwear bomber, and there is a lot of pushback from European and Middle Eastern governments citing invasiveness, unclear health effects, and questionable effectiveness.

Well, the pat downs aren't necessarily effective either when they're overused. See something out of the ordinary or there's an alarm? Sure, have at it. But when it's done so often, the screener can't do a good job when he/she has to process a lot of people and try to get people thru in a reasonable amount of time.

"It is also ironic to read the complaints about lack of professionalism in TSA screeners. The base rate of pay for a screener is $11.64 and hour and they have to endure working split shifts, weekends, holidays, and graveyard shifts. And during those hours they have to deal with leaking adult diapers, a variety of bodily fluids, and constant complaining, ridicule, scorn, and berating by the traveling public they are trying to protect. What kind of professionalim do you think you are going to get for $11.64 an hour to work a terrible job like that? I'm glad I'm not a screener, I couldn't take it."

I see certified nurse's aides doing the same work (maybe without the scorn and ridicule but all the nurses I know can testify that they've had bad patients that have kicked, bitten, hit, and otherwise sworn at them), often for a lot less than what a screener gets and benefits that aren't nearly as good and they're still expected to be professional and they are. If you're hired to do a job, you do it well. It's sad that I can find better customer service from people at McDonald's and Best Buy but I can't get it from our own government.

We don't need excuses from or for TSA we need results. And all we're getting is the former and not the latter.

"Rosemary Fitzpatrick, a CNN employee, said she was subjected to a pat-down at the Orlando, Florida, airport on Wednesday night after her underwire bra set off a magnetometer. She said she was taken to a private area and searched, with transportation screening officers telling her the pat-down was a new procedure.

According to Fitzpatrick, a female screener ran her hands around her breasts, over her stomach, buttocks and her inner thighs, and briefly touched her crotch.

"I felt helpless, I felt violated, and I felt humiliated," Fitzpatrick said, adding that she was reduced to tears at the checkpoint. She particularly objected to the fact that travelers were not warned about the new procedures.

Fitzpatrick sent an e-mail complaint about her experience to the TSA that said the agency needs to get the word out so that travelers know their rights."

8675309 said...It is also ironic to read the complaints about lack of professionalism in TSA screeners. The base rate of pay for a screener is $11.64 and hour and they have to endure working split shifts, weekends, holidays, and graveyard shifts. And during those hours they have to deal with leaking adult diapers, a variety of bodily fluids, and constant complaining, ridicule, scorn, and berating by the traveling public they are trying to protect. What kind of professionalim do you think you are going to get for $11.64 an hour to work a terrible job like that?

I worked at a large city fast food chain in high school making minimum wage ($5.15/hr at the time) and that job pretty much involved everything you describe that TSA people have to deal with, if not even worse conditions. If I had talked to any customer like the TSA guy talked to me (my story is above in this thread), I would have been fired on the spot. A *base* pay of $11.64 to deal with what they deal with? That is not so terrible to warrant obscene behavior.

@Anon1: "i didnt say there were 2 million complaints. of the 2 million people the fly everyday, only 58 of you guys that dont fly complain about the new procedures. thats pretty good odds huh? try to spin better next time...."

I quoted what you said.

I have a hard time believing there are only 58 complaints a day system wide. I've seen DEN claim less than a dozen complaints in a year when I know at least one person who filed more than that himself.

Also keep in mind that many people may not know that they can file an official complaint. Or if the complaint even makes it to where it's supposed to go and not in the garbage can.

@Another anon: "We could always go back to the way it used to be. Oh wait, that didn't end to well for us. DID IT? Do our jobs, people complain. Don't do our jobs, people complain. How do you want it?"

Screening wasn't what failed on 9/11. It's disingenuous to argue otherwise. What failed was allowing the terrorists to gain access to the cockpit and complying with their demands. That began to be fixed even before the last plane crashed.

I want you guys to do a good job. The problem is that you don't. We're no better off than we were on 9/10. The only differences are we pay a heck of a lot more for it, the lines are a lot longer, it's a lot more invasive, and a lot more hassle.

Planes weren't falling out of the sky prior to that. The policy that allowed it to happened changed. Nothing TSA has done would have prevented 9/11 under the previous circumstances had it existed then.

We could always go back to the way it used to be. Oh wait, that didn't end to well for us. DID IT? Do our jobs, people complain. Don't do our jobs, people complain. How do you want it?

------

I'm going to assume from the language you used that you're a TSO. As I hope you would know, 9/11 was not a failure of security. Boxcutters were permitted items, and the recommended procedure for a hijacking was "submit". Not a single measure that the TSA has implemented would have prevented 9/11 from happening. Airlines hardened cockpit door, and airlines changed the SOP for an attempted hijacking from "submit" to "fight".

If we wet back to the security that existed on 9/10/01, we would be just as safe as we are today, with our civil liberties still intact.

#1 It would not be all that difficult to fake a pilot uniform and/or badge to bring something into security (if the TSA avoided screening pilots)

#2 Remember, 9/11 pilots trained for a long time to become 'pilots'.... Flight attendant training is only 7 weeks, so if someone really wanted to bring something in to incapacitate the rest of the crew, they could go through training so they would avoid being screened.

It may take a little extra time, but crewmembers go to the front of the line anyway. They should set a good example for the passengers standing in line by showing them how to go through security smoothly (without arguing with the TSA).

So, either we give the screeners a peek or let them cop a feel? Disgusting. You're not preventing anything, are you? Thanks for making me even more cauommitted to driving hundreds of miles to my intended destinations; I'm sure the airlines will thank you for decreased revenue, as well.

This only confirms the assertions that the government no longer serves the people, but its own goals.

If procedures call for them to go through TSA checkpoint screening and there's an AIT machine present, they can opt out of AIT screening just like any other passenger, but they’ll also receive a thorough pat-down, just like any other passenger who opts out. Opting out of a pat-down and AIT screening would be the same as opting out of screening altogether, and that just can’t be done.

Bob, please tell me your position within TSA is a appointed one.

We are NOT opting out of screening, just the scan and pat-down. IF a individual is selected for the scan, do the normal metal detectors that we have been using for years automatically stop working?

I am a airline pilot, used to making daily decisions concerning not only security, but safety as well. If my company required me to make a flight that is not safe, secure, or right; then I have a important responsibility to myself, crew, family, and passengers to say no. You, and the entire front line team also have to consider what is safe and right.

I've seen pilot uniforms for sale on eBay and credentials can be stolen and counterfeited.

I agree 100% that legitimate pilots already have the ability to crash the plane and that they have better things to do with their time than get screened, but if we exempt pilots from screening we also exempt pilot impersonators from screening.

The simplest way to prevent the terrorist acts is to handcuff all presager at the airport for the entire flight duration. It is a much cheaper solution with the the same level of the massager insult a TSA is doing right now with the full body scanners.Please, consider this option.

This is completely, utterly ridiculous. Has ANYONE at the TSA ever heard of the law of diminishing returns? 8+ years ago, these measures stopped adding ANY meaningful security and became entirely useless except for harassing and intimidating millions of innocent people on a daily basis. The reasons for this are unfathomable to me, except to create a constant climate of fear.

Found this guy's story of being harrassed at security interesting: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/

Based on this, other complaints I've read, and my own personal experience, it seems that TSA's new pat-downs and security guidelines also include a clause that TSA security personnel are supposed to do and say whatever they can to make people feel as stupid or as bad about themselves as they possibly can when they request the pat-down (that TSA's website claim is absolutely an option) instead of going through the AIT scanner.

Is this true Bob? Were TSA employees actually told to treat people with hostility when selecting an optional pat down to make people feel they should go through the scanner instead? Because that practice is not winning your organization any friends.

Maybe there's some hope: "EPIC Challenge to Airport Body Scanner Program Moves Forward in Federal Court: The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has set a briefing schedule for EPIC v. DHS, No. 10-1157, EPIC's challenge to the airport body scanner program. EPIC has alleged that that the Department of Homeland Security has violated three federal laws (the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) and that the body scanner search itself is unconstitutional, given what the courts have said about the permissible scope of airport screening procedures. EPIC's initial brief will be due November 1, 2010. Subsequent briefs from DHS and EPIC will be due by December 15, 2010. In earlier open government litigation against DHS, EPIC obtained evidence that the devices are designed to store and record images." If you can, support EPIC's efforts: epic.org.

Can anyone tell me the exact legal justification for the new proposed TSA pat-downs at the airport? Seems to me that the pat-down, as well as the body scanners, violate Terry v. Ohio.

It is accepted that if a TSA agent (who is an agent of the Government within the meaning of the law) requires a person to be searched, then they have seized that person within the meaning the Fourth Amendment, and Terry v. Ohio specifically says that an agent of the Government may NOT search a person without reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime is either being committed, about to be committed, or has been committed. Merely walking onto a plane is not justification for searching a person, seizing any item upon their person, or using that item in any sort of criminal prosecution.

I am flying next week with my daughter who is 4. There is no way I am voluntarily exposing her to ionizing radiation which means she will be groped by TSA personnel.

Even if you case aside the serious privacy and constitutional issues there is the problem that the TSA seems to be pushing for backscatter over alternatives that do not produce ionizing radiation. Cost cutting that jeopardizes future generations.

So I guess molestation wins, what a screwed up policy. Next time I drive or take the train.

Each ml by security services expose on passengers and passengers while traveling is not secure enough for the security of civil aviation and this does not prevent the kidnapping, bombingAnd I have more

This new policy of being irradiated and having one's genitals displayed on a screen -or- having to be groped before flying is absurd. If this is security theater, it's getting to be abusive theater. If TSA was some sort of a bargain with the American people in the wake of 9/11 I WANT OUT OF THIS BARGAIN!

What's the point of having a blog, Bob, if you never reply to the giant mountain of posts that readers have taken the time to submit. Isn't that your JOB? Paid for by your local neighborhood taxpayer. Thanks buddy

As a victim of child molestation I get physically ill thinking of some stranger putting their hands on my breasts and in between my thighs. I have anxiety going through the checkpoints and am relieved when not forced to have, again a stranger, looking at an xray of my body. There has to be a better way than forcing people to forgo humility. I don't want to pay for plane ticket and be forced to relive the nightmares of my past.

@LadyK!: Is this true Bob? Were TSA employees actually told to treat people with hostility when selecting an optional pat down to make people feel they should go through the scanner instead? Because that practice is not winning your organization any friends.

If Bob actually decided to answer that question, he would most likely swear on a stack of CFR volumes that the SOP contains unambiguous language expressly prohibiting any form of retaliation, and requiring TSOs to treat passengers courteously. (Since the the SOP is SSI for valid National Security reasons, we'll have to trust him on that.)

However, nobody ever holds any TSO accountable for compliance with either provision. (Unless a TSO's behavior is so egregious and widely publicized as to require the Propaganda Department to take the defensive action of issuing a statement blaming the passenger and commending the TSO.) So it's entirely conceivable that TSO training includes a reminder that TSOs have discretion to use the enhanced pat down as an opportunity to help those who "opt out" see the benefit of choosing the scanner.

This, of course, is neither retaliation nor punishment, since the TSA has a valid interest in encouraging passengers to select options that maximize the efficiency of screening. And the pat down itself is neither harassment nor sexual assault, since Bob has clearly informed us that it's a necessary response to the current threat environment based on the latest robust intelligence. People who insist on calling the pat down "punishment" or "sexual assault" simply don't understand the TSA, and should be ignored.

As for "winning your organization any friends," by now it should be clear that they don't want the public to be their friends. TSA leadership apparently believes that security is enhanced when the public fears and reviles their agency. Like much of what the TSA does, this is completely unfathomable. But it's the only conclusion that explains the facts.

Bob, why don't you post pictures of yourself and your family created by the backscatter machine? If your creepy anonymous TSA staff get to see myself and children naked, but it's 'okay', why don't we get to see you? After all, if the pictures are REALLY masked appropriately as you say they are, you'll have no problem posting your own.

Can anyone tell me why child porn charges aren't being brought up against the TSA?

HAVING been taught by nuns in grade school and later going through military boot camp, I have always disliked uniformed authorities shouting at me. So I was unhappy last week when some security screeners at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago started yelling.

“Opt out! We got an opt out!” one bellowed about me in a tone that people in my desert neighborhood in Tucson usually reserve for declaring, “Rattlesnake!”

Other screeners took up the “Opt out!” shout. I was marched from the metal detector lane to one of those nearby whole-body imagers, ordered to take everything out of my pockets, remove my belt and hold my possessions up high. Then I was required to stand still while I received a rough pat-down by a man whose résumé, I suspected, included experience at a state prison.

..............Is this really how TSA wants the public to see your agency?

" 8675309 said... I've seen pilot uniforms for sale on eBay and credentials can be stolen and counterfeited.

I agree 100% that legitimate pilots already have the ability to crash the plane and that they have better things to do with their time than get screened, but if we exempt pilots from screening we also exempt pilot impersonators from screening."

And that is the unfortunate reality of the situation. I think a lot of TSA officers understand the frustration that crew members go through when they have to go through security every day (I know I do) but that doesn't change the process for them. They are already given some exemptions that normal passengers don't get to help accommodate their travel.

I think what really happened with this pilot is this - he was having a bad day. Maybe he got hassled by someone in TSA on his last trip, maybe even on this trip. Maybe he was just tired. I think he let it get out of hand and, once it was made public, he had no real choice but to charge forward - even going so far as to say he was added to a watchlist. And now his pride may cost him his job. I wish that he would have taken a step back and admitted that his behavior wasn't appropriate. We are all human - people can sympathize with stress, anxiety, personal situations, etc. I think if he had admitted that he could've handled the situation in a more professional manner, he could have still voiced his disagreement with the process but in a more productive fashion. I truly hope he has the chance to make amends and keep his job.

An interesting opt out story. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/business/02road.html?_r=2&ref=business

A little short on courtesy, and interesting that “I did what they told me to. But on the other side of the metal detector, I said to another screener, ‘Could you explain to me why the procedure is now different at this airport, like having to remove a wallet that never set off the metal detector?’ And he said, ‘No, no. The process has always been the same, at every airport.’ ”

"I also realize that I was headed to Detroit — the very same city the plane carrying the underwear bomber was headed to last Christmas Day when he tried to blow it out of the air. Still, it was hard to accept this different and totally invasive pat-down. I stood there in shock as the TSA agent touched me in private places, checking my undergarments – top and bottom, front and back – for dangerous explosives.

I let the agent know that if I hadn’t heard about the recent changes, I would have thought she was a criminal and I would have reported her for molesting me. Really. The pat-down was that invasive. She let me know it’s no bag of laughs for her to conduct these pat-downs several times a day. For the most part, both of us have grudgingly accepted this new reality as necessary."

The TSA should be disbanded and the money spent on good old intelligence. By the time they get to the airport it's way, way too late. And most every one of us frequent travelers already have seen one or another way of getting almost anything through your precious machinery and groping. Just by observing the show enough times.

Bob, can you address the issue of medical devices? I'm a frequent flier and I wear an insulin pump. It's not a question of opting out; because of my insulin pump, I have no choice but to submit to an extremely invasive pat-down every time I fly through an airport at which the new scanners are in use. In addition to being incredibly uncomfortable and inappropriate (a stranger touching my crotch is unacceptable), a huge hassle (it takes FOREVER for your screeners to grope me and search my carry-on for explosives), this seems like a pretty clear case of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. What is the TSA going to do to find a way for people who have medical devices not to have to submit to what are, quite frankly, humiliating and disgusting pat-downs?

@Anonymous, November 2, 2010 2:39 AM: As a victim of child molestation I get physically ill thinking of some stranger putting their hands on my breasts and in between my thighs. I have anxiety going through the checkpoints and am relieved when not forced to have, again a stranger, looking at an xray of my body. There has to be a better way than forcing people to forgo humility. I don't want to pay for plane ticket and be forced to relive the nightmares of my past.

Bob, did your infallible, infinitely wise bosses at Headquarters who made the decision to implement these pat downs ever consider this possibility? Do the secret procedures they flowed down contain any provisions for dealing with passengers who might find the procedure disturbing enough to react with something other than the respectful docility expected of passengers?

Sure, the TSO could call in law enforcement. And your propaganda department could issue a press release blaming the passenger, commending the TSO for professionalism under fire, and exploiting the opportunity to remind us that all such difficulty can be avoided by unhesitatingly stepping into the very safe, very friendly scanner that protects both privacy and security.

The fact is that both the scanners and the pat downs represent a new level of intrusion and invasion of privacy, inflicted by an agency that many people have good reason to despise. These measures are likely to have consequences that might not have been foreseen by managers myopically focused on reacting to terrorist threats. If such consequences manifest themselves, you'll have a public relations problem that your usual defensive smokescreen of propaganda won't solve.

@Anonymous, November 4, 2010 12:30 AM: What is the TSA going to do to find a way for people who have medical devices not to have to submit to what are, quite frankly, humiliating and disgusting pat-downs?

They aren't. The TSA has very poor track record of handling "exceptions," whether they're nipple piercings, medications requiring refrigeration, or medical devices. Most people who aren't carrying anything "unusual" and maintain a docile respectful demeanor should have no problem with screening. But if you have any requirements or conditions that are out of the ordinary, your experience will depend on the wildly variable training, experience, and competence of the individual TSO.

Bob would insist that TSOs are trained to process people with medical devices and obligated to treat them with courtesy, so you should not have problems. But as we're all well aware, there too often is a significant difference between what should happen and what does happen at checkpoints. That's one of the major contributors to the TSA's low standing with the public, but there's no evidence that the bosses at Headquarters are interested in doing anything about it.

The only suggestion I can offer is that if your life or health depends on TSOs knowing the rules and implementing them correctly, you should avoid flying. That's the unfortunate reality.

Anonymous at 12:48 AM on 4 Nov 10 asked: "Bob, can you address the issue of medical devices? I'm a frequent flier and I wear an insulin pump. It's not a question of opting out; because of my insulin pump, I have no choice but to submit to an extremely invasive pat-down every time I fly through an airport at which the new scanners are in use. In addition to being incredibly uncomfortable and inappropriate (a stranger touching my crotch is unacceptable), a huge hassle (it takes FOREVER for your screeners to grope me and search my carry-on for explosives), this seems like a pretty clear case of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. What is the TSA going to do to find a way for people who have medical devices not to have to submit to what are, quite frankly, humiliating and disgusting pat-downs?"

Like Anonymous, I also wear a medical device. So, like anonymous, I will subjected to your "enhanced" (extra degrading) pat-down and super inspection of my carry-on. Like Anonymous, because of my medical condition, I do NOT have a choice. For those who would suggest I avoid flying, that is not an option. My employer expects me to travel, issues travel orders, and expects me to use air transportation for all but the closest destinations. I like my job and I don't want to lose it. My work contributes to the defense of the country. Why do you have to make it so much more difficult and stressful?

"Belts, it has been determined, can interfere with the images procured by the new full-body scanners being deployed at checkpoints around the country. And so, from now on, passengers need to remove them.

Now, although we can debate the body scanners from an effectiveness point of view, or from a privacy-rights point of view, separately, this at least makes sense.

Fair enough, except for one thing. As I looked around me, I noticed that there weren't any body scanners anywhere at the checkpoint.

"But sir," I said, motioning to the left and right, "there are no scanners here."

"I know," he replied. "I know. But to keep things consistent, across the board, everybody has to do it."

"Really?"

"Really."

He looked at me. He shrugged and sighed."

---------------------------------I'm wondering just where TSA gets these brilliant rules from that make little sense and offer no security benefit?

Has any of the constant commenters ever considered how little crew-members are paid? Being that terrorist could pay large amounts to people in tough financial situations, a crew member could sneak something on for someone else.Not to say, any airport worker could do this... I'm just making the point that people can sneak things through without putting themselves in danger. Everyone knows a pilot could do whatever he/she wishes to do to the plane. You're all stating the obvious. Try thinking outside the box before all posting the same thing...

If we have to have the pat downs, I know I would feel a whole lot better knowing that I could choose to have a female (person of the opposite sex) to pat me down. Really I think all pat downs could be performed by females. Females do not want to be groped by creepy men and males do not want to be rubbed by other men, but would be relatively OK with getting touched by a female.

Airline pilot Patrick Smith reports on Salon magazine that one's belt must be removed to avoid interference on the full body scanner.

But because of that rule, one must remove a belt even when there is no such scanner.

Can you please confirm that it is only necessary to remove a belt when using the full body scanner, and that you do not need to do so when using a normal metal detector or "opting out" for a secondary screening?

I can not believe, I will be traveling with an 11 and 14 year old girls. I obviously do not want them to go through the full body naked scanner, so the pat down is the way to go. However the pat down procedures consist of touching the the genitle area and breasts. This is nuts.

Anon said:"The TSA should be disbanded and the money spent on good old intelligence. By the time they get to the airport it's way, way too late. And most every one of us frequent travelers already have seen one or another way of getting almost anything through your precious machinery and groping. Just by observing the show enough times."i agree to the utmost, i would like to rely on the frequent fliers to protect me and my family on flight and for that matter on the streets as well. it makes so much sense to get rid of the tsa cause all they do is nothing all day. this blogger presented a perfectly good solution to the problem of tsa. here here!!! although i like the idea of monkeys running security instead, that way the travlers can make complaints about them as well and say on here how much better they are than the tsa. instead of paying them in peanuts they could pay in bananas.

All of this is based on the "Christmas day underwaer bomber," who was the only passenger on that plane who bypassed security with a "sharp dressed" escort and then boarded the plane without a ticket or a passport. WAKE UP People!

What is the point of allowing comments if no one from the TSA is listening or responding? I would appreciate a response.

What is the need for these enhanced pat-downs if they do very little to increase security? Since the TSA does not do a strip search or a body cavity search, the difference between a normal pat-down and an enhanced pat-down is negligible.

Please explain exactly what these enhanced pat-downs will provide in terms of increased security.

Folks, you need to contact your senators and representatives. Put the pressure on them to stop this madness. When we give a little, they take more and more. If they make the body scanners mandatory, this is when I will stop flying.

RE: Anonymous said... Has any of the constant commenters ever considered how little crew-members are paid? Being that terrorist could pay large amounts to people in tough financial situations, a crew member could sneak something on for someone else... You're all stating the obvious. Try thinking outside the box before all posting the same thing...

Actually yes there was a somewhat involved discussion about pay earlier in this thread. And it's not like paying a TSO 6-figures a year is going to make them turn down a monetary offer from a terrorist if that's what you're suggesting. Maybe actually try to read ALL the comments here before attempting to (and failing to) call people out next time.

As mentioned various times and I completely agree with them, AIT scanners will not make us any safer. It is theatrical and I will request another method or actively find the security line without it. I don't understand why we don't just copy the Israeli's system.

This scanning technology is a violation of constitutional rights. There is no "probable cause" to commit a strip search of a body. IN ADDITION, it takes MORE TIME for a person to go through these machines than it does to use the older technology.

This scanning technology is a violation of constitutional rights. There is no "probable cause" to commit a strip search of a body. IN ADDITION, it takes MORE TIME for a person to go through these machines than it does to use the older technology.

***** RB said... TSORon said... RB Said...Is this really how TSA wants the public to see your agency?----------------------No RB, thats how the author of the article, and you of course, want the public to see our agency.I understand the difference, do you?November 4, 2010 2:01 PM................Ok, its just me. No one anywhere else views TSA negatively.Keep telling yourself that TSORonNovember 4, 2010 2:28 PM*****

This exchange was prompted by the Joe Sharkey "Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself" article in the 11/2 New York Times. In response to RB's comment, does TSORon issue anything tantamount to a substantive rebuttal? Anything about TSA internal guidance for treating passengers requesting an opt-out from the AIT scanners? Anything about quality control for these "enhanced pat-downs" (to use the TSA euphemism)? Anything about oversight of the TSA from either within or outside of the TSA? No. Just TSORon with his "I know you are but what am I?" rebuttal. Same went for the BWI sign issue. The TSA has been in existence for only a relatively short while, and yet we already have the thieving TSO in Newark and the "I AM GOD!" TSO in Los Angeles and the Little Peep TSO in Miami. As far as I can tell, there is no board certification or the equivalent for anyone associated with the TSA, so what exactly qualifies them as "professional?" TSORon and "Blogger Bob" [cripes] and the rest might think to the contrary, but there is good reason why people don't quite equate a TSO reviewing an AIT scan with an obstetrician reviewing the same scan. Very good reason. Thank goodness for Joe Sharkey at the NYT and Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic and Matt Drudge and others who are calling out this situation for the sick show that it is.

The question is not whether a stupid and ineffectual inspection regime is applied to everyone equally. It's whether it's simply Security Theatre.

Backscatter probably wouldn't even have stopped the Underwear Bomber.

And unlike TSA, which spends hundreds of thousands of committee man-hours determining the perfect way of winning the last war, Al Qaeda isn't stupid enough to keep doing stuff it knows the TSA is looking for. It's like that old joke about the drunk who looks for his keys under the street light because the light's better there.

It's only a matter of time before somebody in Al Qaeda figures out all they have to do is smuggle explosives in somebody's rectum and GET CAUGHT! Such a "failure" would result in paralysis of the entire civil aviation system as passengers were all forced to undergo mandatory cavity searches.

"It's only a matter of time before somebody in Al Qaeda figures out all they have to do is smuggle explosives in somebody's rectum and GET CAUGHT! Such a "failure" would result in paralysis of the entire civil aviation system as passengers were all forced to undergo mandatory cavity searches."

Bob, you have stated that no sexual assaults take place during the "thorough pat-down". Please answer this: Will the TSA touch the vagina or breasts of a girl or woman? Will the TSA touch the penis or scrotum of a boy or man? Regardless of intent, the act of deliberately touching the genitals, without obtaining prior consent, is a sexual assault in all 50 states. Now accidental touching does happen, but the question is....are TSA employees TRAINED to place their hands in any position that would result in them touching the breasts, vagina, penis or scrotum? Very simple question.

The current discussion about full body scans and the consequences for passengers/crew who refuse highlights the abject failure of leadership at Homeland Security under both the current and past administration. The Milgram experiments conducted at Yale in the early 60s provided scientific evidence that petty bureaucrats like the TSA airport screeners will grossly abuse their power in situations where they some authority over others. Knowing that high liklihood of abuse creates an obligation on the Homeland Security leadership to control it. Instead, they've let it run rampant to the point that airline passengers are treated as poorly as inmates in maximum security prisons by TSA employees who glory in their power.

Imagine my surprise when I was told by multiple TSOs that security IS, in fact optional - for /them/. That the TSOs do not have to be subjected to the same security as everyone else when they enter and leave secure areas, at the discretion of their managers. So a TSO can leave the sterile area, go to their car, pick up some bomb components, throw them in a backpack, and walk back into the sterile area to deliver them to an accomplice, cohort, blackmailer, what have you - all without anyone doing more than waving them through.

If a pilot and flight crew must be thoroughly checked, how is it that a poorly-paid, under-appreciated TSO can be allowed carte blanche?

It's infuriating to think that the next time I fly I might be singled out to either have strangers view me naked or, if I refuse, rub their hands around my genitals. Under any other circumstances forcing someone to submit to such treatment would land you in jail, but somehow this is supposed to make me feel safe?

It is clear that we, the American traveler, are not being listened to. It is also clear that any civil disobedience against TSA will result in violence against us. I suggest that we pick an airline to boycot - to drive out of business. When they go down, and TSA has not relented, pick the next one. No this isn't fair to the airlines, but this violation of our rights has to be stopped by whatever means necessary.

Why not? It used to be possible. In fact it still is possible in most of the world. The reason it isn't possible here is because of stupid TSA policies that have very little actual impact on flying safety.

Anonymous Nov 10, 9:53pm: Around half of the aircraft in the skies flown by major airlines are leased, not owned. The excess capacity is simply parked at Mojave, or repainted (white-tailed) until needed. What you need to do is make them LOSE MONEY by forcing them to fly aircraft below capacity. So you need about 60K regularly flying individuals daily to do that. Weather would make a bigger impact then you ever could.

How many terror attacks has the TSA prevented? NONE. The TSA simply exists to respond to yesterday's threats. They are always one or two steps behind.

If they were truly concerned about hijackings or terror, they would allow weapons on board. Why? For the same reason that "gun free zones" such as schools are always getting shot up, AND YET gun shows where they SELL guns and ammo, they never have any massacres. Why? You level the playing field for the good guys.

I am completely against pilots, flight attendants or anyone else being able to bypass security.

What if a terrorist puts on their uniform and is able to create a fake ID? There is no special verification I have ever seen for pilots or attendants going thru security, they are just dressed in uniform and flash an ID. It's not swipped or scanned where there is any comparison to it being real or not, just a picture. Once you are on the other side of security, it's different, but not at the check point.

If they are allowed to bypass security, what is to keep someone from holding their family hostage and making them carry something into the secured area, or else? You can't even assume that pilots or attendants are even working that day, they can just go on into a secured area with proper dress & something that looks like an ID card.

What are you going to do about a pilot from one of the countries known to want to terrorize the USA. They don't care if the live or die, so you want this pilot to be able to go on past security?

I don't. Any of this could happen before they even get onto the plane that everyone keeps saying is not a problem as they have control of the plane, and can do more damage.

I am more concerend standing in the long security lines myself, looking around at all that carry on luggage that just came from anywhere. There are more people there, than on most airplanes.

If the Feds want to show how they are so on board with these scanners, they should be installed at the entrance of Capital building in D.C, to replace the metal detectors there and, no one is allowed to just flash their badge or congressional pin, and go on through. If they are not intrusive, and safe, there should be no problem.

Dear Bob:I agree we need to be kept safe. Thank you to the hard working TSA agents for putting up with the very unhappy and stressed out travelers. I myself was very upset with a very recent "enhanced patdown" because I opted out. She was professional and answered all my questions. However, I object to having an exam that only my doctor should perform.

Also, how do the gate agents and TSA agents get inside the gate with the starbucks and I have to drink the 12 hour old coffee the poor guy has to schlep through the checkpoint. (MCI, we just have the little stands not actual service within the gates.)

"8675309 said... I've seen pilot uniforms for sale on eBay and credentials can be stolen and counterfeited. I agree 100% that legitimate pilots already have the ability to crash the plane and that they have better things to do with their time than get screened, but if we exempt pilots from screening we also exempt pilot impersonators from screening."

Hey 8675309, I don't want to exempt pilot impersonators from the Nude-o-Scope, but I do think we could exempt actual pilots of actual airline flights. Why can't TSA find a way to confirm the pilot's identity and status with the airlines?

"Generic Airlines, may I help you?""Hi, this is TSA, we have a John Smith here who identifies as the pilot of Generic Airlines flight 123 this morning, can you confirm that?""Yes, that's correct, John Smith, pilot, Generic 123 departing at 8:30 AM.""Okay, Mr. Smith, you're confirmed as the pilot and you can go through."

Never saw anyone attempt to answer the question "Why aren't airport workers and TSA officers on duty required to go thru the same screening?" Bob mentioned screening when they are traveling, fine. So take a purely hypothetical situation, a TSA officer has a cash problem. Someone approaches them with the offer of 500 grand cash to carry something thru security and leave it in a rest room trash can.If you are going to the wild extreme of full body scans on working on duty pilots, then that scenario must be taken into account.

In the fourth amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Where on the TSA website are we advised of the Oath or Affirmation of the TSA offical onsite of the probable cause and secondly of the place to be searched or the things to be seized?

"It has always been this way" is a preposterous argument here. For some types of threats and some types of security screening, it makes sense to treat everyone equally. For other types of threats and the corresponding screening, it makes no sense whatsoever. If you're screening to see whether a bomb got slipped into somebody's bag (by whom it does not matter), then exempting pilots doesn't make sense. If you're screening to see whether someone has a razor blade that could be used to hijack the plane and then crash it, then it makes zero sense to screen the pilots - they're already in the cockpit! "This is the way it's always been" is patently ridiculous as justification for the introduction of new and wildly invasive screening techniques, like, I don't know, taking naked pictures of everyone.

Why does "screening" have to mean the same procedure for everyone? For the flight crew, they've been screened by background check, an FAA license, and so on. Their screening should be complete by ensuring that they are who their ID says they are.

For me, traveling on a ticked purchased by a major corporation's travel agency, and with a valid concealed carry permit (for which I had a background check), screening could still be less than the single guy who bought his ticket on a personal credit card or the random dude who walks up with cash at the last minute.

TSA should learn some lessons from the Israelis, as I'm sure has been pointed out here somewhere.

The TSA's rationale for violating our privacy is that these machines are needed to keep us safer. Yet there any evidence WHATSOEVER that they do? Have they materially improved security in the sites where they have been implemented -- ie have they interdicted a SINGLE terrorist effort? Is there any evidence they're ANY better than normal xray machines at doing so? Are they more effective than an equivalent investment in increased intelligence? Where is the independent, corroborated evidence that they actually work?!

FULL BODY SCANS FOR EVERYONE!!! YAY FOR TSA! Do ANYTHING & EVERYTHING to make our flights SAFE!! Don't like it? YOU HAVE A CHOICE...DRIVE! The scans are NOT sexual...It's SAFETY! Get over yourselves people!!

I respectfully suggest a good place to start is hearings on who is profiting from this nonsense. Chertoff, the second head of the Department, has among his company’s clients Rapiscam, the firm that makes most of the units. Rapiscam is owned by OSI Systems, whose rising stock is half held by ECIL, an Indian company. Following these trails might be interesting, as would be asking why body scanners were paid for by federal stimulus money. That never should have happened.

If I don't want to be irradiated, and I don't want to be groped, but I'm willing to get naked and show you that I have nothing on me, will that work? It should. It would serve the same purpose as the scanner, showing you directly, with your eyes, that I have no contraband or weapons. In fact, it would be more thorough than a pat-down. Please consider that as a third option for those who don't want to be irradiated or touched but who are willing to disrobe. If you genuinely care about security you'll allow any option that achieves the same goal without forcing unnecessary harm on people.